Ethics Theory and Business Ethics

1. Introduction:

The significance of ethics theory and business ethics cannot be denied in shaping the ethical decision-making and moral conduct of individuals and organizations. Ethics theory entails a framework of values and principles that steer individuals in distinguishing right from wrong, whereas business ethics include principles and practices guiding organizations in their interactions with stakeholders. The business world recognizes the indispensability of ethics as it affects their reputation, trustworthiness, and sustainability. Therefore, individuals and organizations must realize the value of ethics and incorporate it into their decision-making processes.

2. Main Body:

2.1 Part A:

According to Rendtorff (2019), Ethics is a philosophical discipline concerned with moral values and principles and how they apply to human conduct. Ethics serves to differentiate between right and wrong, pros and cons, and just and unjust actions. It also provides a framework for decision-making in a wide range of fields, such as business, politics, and personal relationships. Meanwhile, literature is an artistic form of written or spoken expression that explores various aspects of human experience, including ethical issues and moral dilemmas. As such, literature can be a valuable source of ethical insights and reflections. This essay will examine how two ethical theories, Utilitarianism and the Categorical Imperative, use literature to illustrate their principles.

Utilitarianism is an ethical theory that concentrates on the outcomes or results of actions, and it was first introduced by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill (Das,2020).. The fundamental principle of this theory is that an action is considered ethically correct if it produces the most significant level of joy or satisfaction experienced by most people. A fundamental idea in utilitarianism is the concept of the utility principle, which asserts that an action is deemed good if it promotes the highest level of happiness for the most significant number of people.

As opined by Woodard,(2019), Utilitarianism is a consequentialist philosophy that gives importance to maximizing the total happiness or pleasure of the largest possible group of people. Literature can provide insights into utilitarianism by examining characters who make difficult decisions that require sacrificing the happiness or well-being of one person or group in favor of the greater good. Utilitarianism’s potency lies in its emphasis on the outcomes of actions and its dedication to attaining the most significant benefit for the largest amount of people. This approach provides an objective and quantifiable method for ethical decision-making, especially in circumstances where the results of an action are evident and quantifiable.

However, the weakness of utilitarianism is that it may neglect the interests and well-being of minority groups or individuals. As per study by Delanty,( 2020), Literature can demonstrate this weakness in characters who make decisions that harm or neglect the interests of one person or group in the pursuit of the greater good. This can result in a disregard for the value of human life, dignity, and rights, leading to unethical decisions that favor the majority at the expense of the minority.

Counterargument: It is possible to argue that utilitarianism does not ignore the interests of minority groups but rather prioritizes the interests of the majority to achieve the greatest good for the greatest number. Additionally, utilitarianism can be modified to include the interests of minority groups through the application of a rule-utilitarian approach, which creates rules that maximize overall happiness or pleasure for everyone, including minority groups.

According to Akel and Armağan,(2021) Utilitarianism has the potential to be utilized in literary analysis to examine the ethical consequences of character actions. William Shakespeare’s play Macbeth, for instance, offers an example where the protagonist, Macbeth, murders the king in his quest for power and to become the king himself. Macbeth rationalizes his actions as being for the benefit of Scotland as a whole. Nevertheless, the consequences of his actions result in disorder and devastation, prompting a discussion about the morality of his utilitarian perspective.

According to Gaucher,(2021), An argument against utilitarianism is that it is difficult to objectively quantify happiness or pleasure. Utilitarianism presumes that happiness or pleasure can be measured, which is not always accurate. For instance, certain activities that some individuals find immoral, such as gambling or drug use, can bring pleasure to others. Therefore, it becomes difficult to ascertain which actions will result in the most significant amount of happiness for the majority of individuals.

According to Fousiani et al.(2019), Another argument against utilitarianism is that it can lead to the justification of immoral actions. According to this ethical theory, if an action results in the highest amount of happiness for the majority, it can be considered morally correct, even if it causes harm or suffering to a minority group. For instance, utilitarianism could be utilized to rationalize the oppression of a minority group if it is deemed to benefit the majority.

Utilitarianism can be utilized in literary analysis to examine the ethical implications of character actions, as exemplified in Charles Dickens’ novel, Hard Times. In this novel, the character Thomas Gradgrind is portrayed as a strict utilitarian who prioritizes facts and logic above all else (Alzouabi, 2021). He teaches his children to think logically and suppress their emotions, believing that this approach will lead to the most significant amount of happiness for the majority of individuals. However, his utilitarian approach causes emotional repression and distress for his children and others in his circle.

According to Jabak,(2019) Utilitarianism is also evident in George Orwell’s Animal Farm, where the pigs that take control of the farm justify their actions by asserting that they are working for the betterment of all the animals. Nonetheless, their utilitarian approach ultimately leads to the oppression and misery of the other animals.

Immanuel Kant, a German philosopher, developed the Categorical Imperative as an ethical theory that emphasizes the role of rationality in determining morality (Agaton,2022). According to Kant, This theory is a general principle that is applicable to all reasonable beings, regardless of their individual wishes or inclinations, could be a rephrased sentence. It disregards the impact of emotions or consequences and must be followed without any exceptions.

The Categorical Imperative is a deontological ethical theory that emphasizes the importance of acting based on a sense of duty or obligation to ethical principles. As opined by Beyleveld and Düwell,(2020) Literature can provide insights into the Categorical Imperative by examining characters who prioritize ethical principles over personal gain, even when doing so is difficult or unpopular. The strength of the Categorical Imperative lies in its focus on moral duty and the universal application of ethical principles. It recognizes the inherent value and dignity of every human being and requires individuals to act in accordance with ethical principles, regardless of the consequences.

However, the weakness of the Categorical Imperative is that it may overlook the consequences of actions and decisions. Literature can demonstrate this weakness in characters who make decisions based on their sense of duty without considering the potential harm or consequences of their actions. This can lead to inflexible decision-making that fails to adapt to changing circumstances or new information.

According to Abi Ige (2021), It can be argued that the Categorical Imperative does not overlook the consequences of actions but rather requires individuals to consider the consequences within the framework of ethical principles. This approach promotes ethical decision-making that is consistent with ethical principles while also taking into account the potential consequences of actions.

As opined by Pavlova et al. (2019), Kant’s Categorical Imperative can be expressed in two distinct forms. The first form is the Principle of Universalizability, which asserts that an action is ethically correct if it can be universally applied without contradiction. In other words, if an action is morally acceptable for one individual, then it should also be acceptable for everyone else who finds themselves in comparable circumstances.

According to Abakare, (2021), Kant’s Categorical Imperative’s second formulation is known as the Principle of Humanity, which suggests that people ought to be regarded as ends in themselves, rather than merely a means to accomplish an end, could be a rephrased sentence. This implies that individuals should be valued and respected rather than being used as instruments to achieve certain objectives.

By portraying characters who embody the principles of the Categorical Imperative, literature can help us comprehend this concept. Atticus Finch from Harper Lee’s “To Kill a Mockingbird” is an excellent example of a character who demonstrates the Categorical Imperative by standing up for what is right, despite it being unpopular or going against social norms (Abakare, 2021). Despite the risk posed to him and his family, Atticus advocates for a black man charged with the rape of a white woman. This novel illustrates that implementing the principles of the Categorical Imperative can be challenging, but they are crucial in establishing a fair and ethical society.

The Categorical Imperative can be used to examine the ethical ramifications of character actions in literature. An example of this is found in Fyodor Dostoevsky’s Crime and Punishment, where the main character, Raskolnikov, commits murder to prove his exceptionalism and exemption from the law (Turkan, 2022). Nevertheless, the aftermath of his actions leads to feelings of guilt and misery, which prompts questions about the ethical validity of his actions.

According to Qvortrup,(2022 ), Another argument against the Categorical Imperative is that it is too utopian and does not reflect the actuality of human behavior. Individuals are not always rational and may act based on their emotions or desires instead of solely relying on reasoning. Hence, the Categorical Imperative might not be a workable or realistic ethical theory.The Categorical Imperative, which can be utilized to scrutinize the ethical consequences of a character’s actions, finds application in literature. One instance of this can be seen in Arthur Miller’s play, The Crucible, where characters are presented with a dilemma of either admitting to witchcraft and living or staying firm on their innocence and accepting death. John Proctor, a character in the play, opts to uphold his honor and declines to sign a false confession, despite the risk of death. This decision is consistent with the principle of humanity, as Proctor respects his own self-worth and refuses to be exploited as a means to accomplish the court’s objectives.

According to Mensah, (2020), Literature frequently employs Utilitarianism and the Categorical Imperative ethical theories to delve into ethical decision-making and moral dilemmas. Utilitarianism is a consequentialist philosophy that asserts that actions should be judged by their ability to maximize the total happiness or pleasure of the greatest number of people. In literature, this theory can be explored by analyzing characters who must make tough decisions that necessitate sacrificing the happiness or well-being of one person or group to achieve the greater good.

According to McDonald, (2023), The Categorical Imperative is a deontological ethical theory that highlights the significance of acting based on a sense of duty or obligation to ethical principles. In literature, this theory can be examined through characters who prioritize ethical principles over personal gain, even if doing so is difficult or unpopular. Both the theories of Utilitarianism and the Categorical Imperative provide valuable insights into moral decision-making and ethical conduct. Literature can assist readers in comprehending these theories by portraying characters who embody their principles and demonstrating the intricacies and difficulties of implementing them in practice.

To sum up, literature is a powerful medium for exploring ethical theories like Utilitarianism and the Categorical Imperative. By reading literature, we can gain a more profound understanding of these ethical frameworks and how they can be utilized in real-life situations, which can help us make more thoughtful and ethical decisions in our everyday lives.

2.2. Part B:

According to Che et al.(2023), In 2015, the automobile industry was shaken by the significant occurrence of the Volkswagen diesel emissions scandal. Essentially, Volkswagen (VW) confessed that it had integrated software into its diesel engines, allowing them to manipulate emissions testing. The software was designed to activate a “clean” mode during testing but would switch back to a “dirty” mode during normal driving. The scandal had a profound impact on VW’s standing, leading to considerable financial damages and legal consequences.

As opined by Ameen, (2020), The Volkswagen scandal represents an ethical quandary, wherein the company encountered competing moral responsibilities. In one respect, VW was obligated to abide by environmental rules and manufacture cars that satisfied emissions criteria. On the other hand, the company was motivated to reach sales objectives and outcompete other automakers, and the software allowed them to attain superior performance and fuel efficiency while still maintaining emissions levels.

In this particular situation, the company (or its employees) could have relied on ethical theories such as the Categorical Imperative and Utilitarianism. Immanuel Kant developed the Categorical Imperative as a deontological moral theory, This theory proposes that actions should be based on universal principles rather than the outcomes they produce. This means that an action is considered moral if it can be applied universally and without contradiction. For instance, lying is always wrong because it goes against the principle of honesty ( Teck et al. 2020).

In contrast, Utilitarianism is an ethical theory that belongs to consequentialism and asserts that actions should be evaluated based on their consequences. As per this theory, an action is considered ethical if it leads to the greatest possible benefit for the most extensive group of people. For instance, if a corporation chooses to invest in sustainable energy, it would be viewed as ethical if it leads to a decline in carbon emissions and a beneficial impact on the environment.

Had the employees at Volkswagen adhered to the Categorical Imperative, they would have been steered by the principle of universalizability (Friedland et al.2020). The principle suggests that an action is morally acceptable only if it can be applied universally without encountering any contradictions. In this instance, the workers would have had to contemplate whether it would be acceptable for all car manufacturers to manipulate emissions tests. If cheating became the standard practice, it would no longer be a breach of ethical principles, and the principle of universalizability would be breached.

As opined by Catacutan, (2019), If Volkswagen had adhered to the Categorical Imperative, the company would have abstained from cheating emissions tests, even if it resulted in reduced performance or increased expenses. The principle of universalizability would have barred the company from taking actions that could not be applied universally without inconsistency. Rather, the company would have concentrated on creating technology that would have allowed it to manufacture vehicles that satisfied emissions standards without sacrificing performance or fuel efficiency.

According to Bowen and Bhalla (2021), If the employees at Volkswagen had embraced Utilitarianism, they would have been directed by the principle of generating the most significant amount of benefit for the largest number of individuals. In this scenario, the workers would have had to evaluate the advantages of manipulating emissions tests against the potential harm caused by heightened pollution. If the benefits were deemed greater than the harm, the action would be viewed as ethical under Utilitarianism.

If Volkswagen had pursued Utilitarianism, the company would have been more inclined to participate in cheating emissions tests. The company would have measured the advantages of better performance and fuel efficiency against the potential harm caused by increased pollution. If the benefits were considered to exceed the harm, the company would have determined that cheating emissions tests was ethical. However, the Utilitarian perspective may not have factored in the damage caused by the scandal to the company’s reputation, financial losses, and legal penalties(Li, 2023).

If Volkswagen had employed Utilitarianism as its guiding ethical theory, it would have given precedence to mitigating harmful emissions for the greater good, even if it necessitated sacrificing the interests of shareholders or executives. The company would have moved quickly to recall and fix affected vehicles, compensate for fines and settlements, and fund cleaner technology to reduce emissions in the future. This method would have prioritized the welfare of the environment and society over the company’s short-term financial gain (Wai et al.2021)

However. If Volkswagen had adopted the Categorical Imperative as its ethical theory, the company would have underscored the significance of ethical principles and treating all stakeholders, including customers, employees, and the environment, with respect and dignity. The company would have taken responsibility for its actions and endeavored to rectify the harm inflicted on society and the environment. This approach would have prioritized the inherent value and dignity of all stakeholders over the interests of the company or its executives.

As per the study by Castille and Endress.(2023), In the Volkswagen scandal, employees within the company conspired to cheat on emissions tests for diesel engines, resulting in increased levels of harmful emissions. When analyzed through the lens of the Categorical Imperative, the decision to cheat is considered unethical because it violates the principle of treating others with respect and dignity. By prioritizing the company’s interests over the well-being of customers and the environment, the employees treated them as a means to an end rather than as ends in themselves. This highlights the importance of upholding ethical principles and considering the impact of actions on all stakeholders, even in complex real-world situations.

To determine whether an action is ethical or not, Utilitarianism considers the consequences of that action. In the case of the Volkswagen scandal, the decision to cheat on emissions tests could be deemed ethical if it resulted in an overall reduction in harmful emissions, leading to a net positive impact on human health and the environment. However, ethical decision-making is often more complicated than this, especially in real-world scenarios like the Volkswagen scandal (Roddy and Wang. 2019). In these cases, it may be necessary to incorporate both the Categorical Imperative and Utilitarianism to arrive at a more complex ethical decision.

To make a more nuanced ethical decision, it may be necessary to integrate both the Categorical Imperative and Utilitarianism. This could involve evaluating the consequences of the decision from a utilitarian perspective while also ensuring that the decision respects the moral principles of the Categorical Imperative. For instance, According to Gaim et al. (2021), in the Volkswagen scandal, this approach would require examining the potential harm caused by increased NOx emissions and the effect of the scandal on the company’s image, stakeholders, and the broader community. By considering both the consequences of the decision and the ethical principles involved, the company would be better equipped to arrive at an ethical decision that is both effective and morally sound. It is crucial to consider the long-term implications of the decision and the potential impact on stakeholders beyond the immediate consequences.

To put it differently, Volkswagen’s actions deviated from both utilitarianism and the Categorical Imperative. The company opted to prioritize immediate financial benefit and deceive regulators and customers, instead of prioritizing the welfare of society and the environment or adhering to ethical principles.

In summary, the Volkswagen diesel emissions scandal illustrates the ethical dilemma that arises when meeting sales targets conflicts with complying with regulations (Che et al. 2020). The Categorical Imperative and Utilitarianism are two ethical theories that could have guided Volkswagen in this situation. The case demonstrates the importance of applying ethical theories in professional practice. Although both theories could have been used to guide decision-making, Volkswagen’s actions did not align with either of them. Had the company used either theory as their guiding ethical framework, they would have made different decisions and taken responsibility for their actions. It is crucial for companies and individuals to consider ethical principles in their decision-making process to ensure that they act in accordance with their values and the well-being of all stakeholders.

3. Conclusion:

To sum up, ethics theory and business ethics provide crucial frameworks that steer individuals and organizations towards ethical decision-making and morally responsible conduct. These frameworks highlight the significance of honesty, integrity, and consideration for all stakeholders, such as employees, customers, and the environment. Adopting ethical practices not only helps businesses to enhance their reputation and establish trust with stakeholders, but also contributes to the creation of a more sustainable future. It is imperative for individuals and organizations to acknowledge the importance of ethics and incorporate it into their decision-making processes to pave the way for a better world.

4. References

Rendtorff, J.D., 2019. Philosophy of management and sustainability: Rethinking business ethics and social responsibility in sustainable development. Emerald Group Publishing.

Das, D., 2020. Utilitarianism and longing for happiness. PalArch’s Journal of Archaeology of Egypt/Egyptology, 17(6), pp.13246-13251.

Woodard, C., 2019. Taking utilitarianism seriously. Oxford University Press.

Delanty, G., 2020. Six political philosophies in search of a virus: Critical perspectives on the coronavirus pandemic. LEQS paper, 156, pp.5-24.

Akel, G. and Armağan, E., 2021. Hedonic and utilitarian benefits as determinants of the application continuance intention in location-based applications: The mediating role of satisfaction. Multimedia Tools and Applications, 80(5), pp.7103-7124.

Gaucher, R., 2021. How to optimize the relationship between public spending and happiness. International Journal of Community Well-Being, pp.1-21.

Fousiani, K., Yzerbyt, V., Kteily, N.S. and Demoulin, S., 2019. Justice reactions to deviant ingroup members: Ingroup identity threat motivates utilitarian punishments. British Journal of Social Psychology, 58(4), pp.869-893.

Alzouabi, L., 2021. A Reading of Charles Dickens’ Hard Times (1854) As a Crime Novel. International Journal of Linguistics, Literature and Translation, 4(4), pp.193-199.

Jabak, O., 2019. George Orwell’s Animal Farm: An Outcry Against False Revolutionary Leaders. English Literature and Language Review, 5(10), pp.173-179.

Agaton, S.I.G., 2022. The Kantian Categorical Imperative and Marawi Refugees: Affirming the Importance of the Anti-Terrorism Law. Masyarakat, Kebud. Dan Polit, 35(2), p.233.

Beyleveld, D. and Düwell, M., 2020. The Sole Fact of Pure Reason: Kant’s Quasi-Ontological Argument for the Categorical Imperative (Vol. 210). Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG.

Abi Ige, A., 2021. Exploring implications of categories: Categorical stereotypes in organizational research. American Journal of Management, 21(3), pp.45-61.

Pavlova, T., Zarutska, E., Pavlov, R. and Kolomoichenko, O., 2019. Ethics and law in Kant’s views: the principle of complementarity. International Journal of Ethics and Systems, 35(4), pp.651-664.

Abakare, C.O., 2021. Kantian Ethics And The Hesc Research: A Philosophical Exploration.

Treiber, M.H., Power, Intersectionality, and Marginalization: An Analysis of Trial Scenes in Canonical Literature. The Cupola, p.328.

Turkan, O., 2022. FM DOSTOEVSKY’S ANNIVERSARY ON THE PAGES OF TURKISH LITERARY JOURNAL “HECE”. Два века русской классики, 4(1), pp.242-271.

Qvortrup, M., 2022. Kant’s Political Philosophy. Philosophy Now, 150, pp.8-11.

Mensah, R.O., 2020. A comparative philosophical analysis of the Kantian principle of moral theory and the Utilitarian theory: Applications and critiques. Mensah, Ronald Osei, A Comparative Philosophical Analysis of the Kantian Principle of Moral Theory and the Utilitarian Theory: Applications and Critiques (September 17, 2020).

McDonald, F.J., 2023. AI, alignment, and the categorical imperative. AI and Ethics, 3(1), pp.337-344.

Che, X., Katayama, H. and Lee, P., 2023. Product-Harm Crises and Spillover Effects: A Case Study of the Volkswagen Diesel Emissions Scandal in eBay Used Car Auction Markets. Journal of Marketing Research, 60(2), pp.409-424.

Ameen, K., 2020. Failure of Ethical Compliance: The Case of Volkswagen..

Teck, T.S., Ayadurai, S., Chua, W., Liang, T.P. and Sorooshian, S., 2020. Sensemaking Corporate Social Responsibility, Reflexive Organisational Change and Moral Transpose, the Case of Volkswagen’Diesel Dupe’Crisis. J. Mgmt. & Sustainability, 10, p.66.

Friedland, J., Emich, K. and Cole, B.M., 2020. Uncovering the moral heuristics of altruism: A philosophical scale. PLoS One, 15(3), p.e0229124.

Catacutan, M.R.G., 2019. Ethical decision-making and behavioural ethics: Exploring the link between organisational culture and ethical behaviour. MAINSTREAMING ETHICS IN HIGHER EDUCATION, p.163.

Bowen, S.A. and Bhalla, N., 2021. 30 Ethical theories and public relations: Global issues and challenges. In Public relations (pp. 581-598). De Gruyter Mouton.

Li, N., 2023. Ethical Considerations for Automobile Emissions Management Background, Detriment, and Litigation. European Journal of Business and Innovation Research, 11(1), pp.11-20.

Wai, C.K., Teck, T.S., Junkai, M., Lu, H., Hoo, W.C., Hong Ng, A.H. and Sam, T.H., 2021. Mapping the Volkswagen diesel dupe crisis, its implications and sustainability of their responses. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 11(5), pp.211-226.

Castille, C.M. and Endress, T., 2023. New Work and Collaborative Cheating–Lessons from the VW Emission Scandal. Digital Project Practice for New Work and Industry 4.0, p.59.

Roddy, A. and Wang, Y., 2019. Groups Decision Making Under Uncertain Conditions in Relation—A Volkswagen Case Study. In Advanced Manufacturing and Automation VIII 8 (pp. 406-410). Springer Singapore.

Gaim, M., Clegg, S. and Cunha, M.P.E., 2021. Managing impressions rather than emissions: Volkswagen and the false mastery of paradox. Organization Studies, 42(6), pp.949-970.

Che, X., Katayama, H. and Lee, P., 2020. Willingness to pay for brand reputation: Lessons from the volkswagen diesel emissions scandal.

5. Bibliography

Poier, S., 2020. Clean and Green–The Volkswagen Emissions Scandal: Failure of Corporate Governance?. Problemy Ekorozwoju, 15(2), pp.33-39.

Strittmatter, A. and Lechner, M., 2020. Sorting in the used-car market after the Volkswagen emission scandal. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 101, p.102305.

Pries, L. and Wäcken, N., 2020. The 2015 Volkswagen ‘diesel-gate’and its impact on German carmakers. New Frontiers of the Automobile Industry: Exploring Geographies, Technology, and Institutional Challenges, pp.89-111.

Kuo, F.C. and Shu, L.H., 2021. The Impact of Volkswagen Dieselgate on the Taiwanese Automotive Market. Available at SSRN 3977622.

Karnouskos, S., 2021. The role of utilitarianism, self-safety, and technology in the acceptance of self-driving cars. Cognition, Technology & Work, 23(4), pp.659-667.

Smart, J.J.C., 2020. Utilitarianism and its applications. In New directions in Ethics (pp. 24-41). Routledge.